The COTF Master Plan: Part 1

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

5 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

It makes very clear that aside from Ghost no animal has touched Jafar and Othor. And as far as I know, ravens and crows are still animals right? There is no ambiguity about that.

Incorrect. It makes it clear that the bodies have not been eaten, and are not rotting. And they suspiciously never comment on what Othor's wounds look like exactly. It is ambiguous. Saying Othor was definitely killed by an axe is not a fair statement. I'm on my phone so I can't copy paste the whole quote but it is not clear what killed Othor.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

13 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

"proof" is related to "testable evidence". It has nothing to do with "strong" or "weak", but testability. I would in general not use "proof" for a literary hypothesis, because we can't actually perform physical tests on the story. 

OK, what word would you use instead of evidence for details that support an unproven theory? I'm legit curious.

[sweetsunray]

1 minute ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Incorrect. It makes it clear that the bodies have not been eaten, and are not rotting. And they suspiciously never comment on what Othor's wounds look like exactly. It is ambiguous. Saying Othor was definitely killed by an axe is not a fair statement. I'm on my phone so I can't copy paste the whole quote but it is not clear what killed Othor.

Ravens pecking is eating, whether the person is still alive or not. In fact, that's exactly how Sam refers to what the raven is doing to Small Paul in the wildling village where Gilly and him are saved by Coldhands.

[sweetsunray]

4 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

OK, what word would you use instead of evidence for details that support an unproven theory? I'm legit curious.

first of all, an unrpoven theory is what I refer to as a hypothesis. Theory is the word you use when a hypothesis has been proven.

Details forwarded in support of the hypothesis are called "evidence". It's "proof" when it relates to testable evidence. "Hard evidence" means material evidence (as in "matter"): something you can test, measure, bang on with a hammer. Testimony for example is evidence, but not proof, because you cannot measure, probe, touch it.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

3 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Ravens pecking is eating, whether the person is still alive or not. In fact, that's exactly how Sam refers to what the raven is doing to Small Paul in the wildling village where Gilly and him are saved by Coldhands.

I'm thinking specifically, they may not have realized that the rash of mortal wounds was from birds pecking. I have never seen a body that was pecked to death, and I'm betting neither have the characters. And they never say what exactly they think caused the rash of mortal wounds. Yes pecking is essentially eating, but they were talking about the fact that they would expect worms and chewed limbs and such to be present but the bodies clearly haven't been eaten for some reason. It is ambiguous.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

13 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

first of all, an unrpoven theory is what I refer to as a hypothesis. Theory is the word you use when a hypothesis has been proven.

Details forwarded in support of the hypothesis are called "evidence". It's "proof" when it relates to testable evidence. "Hard evidence" means material evidence (as in "matter"): something you can test, measure, bang on with a hammer. Testimony for example is evidence, but not proof, because you cannot measure, probe, touch it.

OK so according to your definitions, I should be using the word evidence but not the word proof? And I should also use the word hypothesis instead of theory? Well then I have been using my terms evidence and proof correctly. But according to you all of the theories on the forums should really be referred to as hypotheses. I guess that's fair. I'm going to keep calling this a theory just because that's always how I've referred to asoiaf hypotheses, and most people do the same.

[sweetsunray]

8 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I'm thinking specifically, they may not have realized that the rash of mortal wounds was from birds pecking. I have never seen a body that was pecked to death, and I'm betting neither have the characters. And they never say what exactly they think caused the rash of mortal wounds.

The bolded is absolutely absurd. How often do we get references of characters thinking the crows have been at a body? Too many to start citing it. Pecking wounds do not look different on a live person than on a dead person. They have all seen hanged men and women being pecked at.

Quote

Yes pecking is essentially eating, but they were talking about the fact that they would expect worms and chewed limbs and such to be present but the bodies clearly haven't been eaten for some reason. It is ambiguous.

It is not ambiguous, because it's not just "maggots" or "chewed at". The "or eaten by animals" is added on purpose to avoid the exclusion of any other type of animal wound that is not chewing, such as pecking.

And on top of that we have Jon saying "untouched".

 

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

3 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

The bolded is absolutely absurd. How often do we get references of characters thinking the crows have been at a body? Too many to start citing it. Pecking wounds do not look different on a live person than on a dead person. They have all seen hanged men and women being pecked at.

It is not ambiguous, because it's not just "maggots" or "chewed at". The "or eaten by animals" is added on purpose to avoid the exclusion of any other type of animal wound that is not chewing, such as pecking.

And on top of that we have Jon saying "untouched".

 

Yeah, I know what it says, I just reread the passage. I can see you really want it to not be ambiguous, but it is ambiguous. If they had said what caused Othor's wounds like they talked about what caused Jafer's wound, maybe it wouldn't be ambiguous. But they don't talk about it, so it's ambiguous. Disagree with me if you want, I don't think we are going to agree on this point.

[sweetsunray]

7 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

OK so according to your definitions, I should be using the word evidence but not the word proof? And I should also use the word hypothesis instead of theory? Well then I have been using my terms evidence and proof correctly. But according to you all of the theories on the forums should really be referred to as hypotheses. I guess that's fair. I'm going to keep calling this a theory just because that's always how I've referred to asoiaf hypotheses, and most people do the same.

Those are not my definitions. Those are the scientific definitions. Strictly speaking yes, we should only speak of hypothesis and evidence, not of theories and proof. A literary hypothesis becomes a theory when George confirms it. But this is not science, and it is perfectly alright to refer to what is called a hypothesis in science as a theory in a non-scientific context. In such a context it is understood that it means "unconfirmed" or "unproven". And thus by extension in laymen context the word "proof" is a synonym of "evidence". But it's not correct to then personally say "but my evidence is proof" in a subjective context of strong and weak. When we're talking about text that is immaterial to begin with, you never have strong evidence... you can only have a lot of evidence, little or no evidence.

(There is only an issue when people use the laymen meaning to the scientific use of "theory" by claiming that "the evolution theory" = "unproven", because that's absolutely a wrong statement to make with regards the meaning of the word "theory" in science, since in science it means "confirmed". Words such as laws and theory have more to do with the nature of what is confirmed or positively asserted)

[Gertrude]

Skeletons, this is an example of what I was speaking about. No, the text doesn't say what killed Othor. It supports the idea that the wounds weren't made by animals, but doesn't out right refute it. You use examples like this, where something is not flat out refuted, and weave them into your theory. And while it may make sense to you and it can't be disproved by others, it is not at all persuasive. I am assuming you ultimately want to persuade others to believe in your theory, and maybe that assumption is wrong.

[sweetsunray]

23 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Yeah, I know what it says, I just reread the passage. I can see you really want it to not be ambiguous, but it is ambiguous. If they had said what caused Othor's wounds like they talked about what caused Jafer's wound, maybe it wouldn't be ambiguous. But they don't talk about it, so it's ambiguous. Disagree with me if you want, I don't think we are going to agree on this point.

Please refrain from telling me what you think I want or do not want, especially in a manner as if you know what I want or not. It's called "appeal to motive" and an "ad hominem argument" (targeting the person, rather than the argument).

And they definitely talk about Othor when it comes to "not being eaten" and being "untouched".

[sweetsunray]

22 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

No, the text doesn't say what killed Othor. It supports the idea that the wounds weren't made by animals, but doesn't out right refute it.

While I agree that one can argue the "autopsy report" is ambiguous because nobody says explicitly, "Well, look at Othor here. That wasn't an axe!" or "Looks like he was killed with a sword," or Mormont saying "what weird wounds, looks like my pet raven has been at him." (Mormont's raven does peck him at times and draws blood). All we have is that each of his wounds were "mortal", meaning that all three wounds are big/deep enough to have caused death by themselves.

But the text does refute Othor was not eaten, alive or dead. A shark bite still looks like a shark bite for example, whether the shark bit living or dead prey. The major difference is not in the type of wound it would display but the blood flow that follows from it. The crusted blood mentioned is the evidence that these wounds were made to a living Othor. There would be no crusted blood if made afterwards.

A lot of the ambiguity purely stems from it being a novel, not an autopsy report, and repetition is avoided unless it has a purpose (such as mannerism of speech, recurring thoughts, or making clear that both men's eyes have turned blue) because otherwise dialogue becomes stilted and cumbersome.

 

[Gertrude]

Technically the ravens could have just simply pecked him with the sole purpose of causing harm (as Skeletons is arguing - I think) If they were controlled by a human mind, the marks might look different than what the men were used to seeing from scavenging crows. And while I believe the text STRONGLY supports that the wounds were from weapons rather than animals. it just doesn't flat-out refute it, which is where Skeletons is finding room to wiggle. Those tiny margins of doubt are not persuasive or compelling, which is the point I was trying to make.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

23 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Technically the ravens could have just simply pecked him with the sole purpose of causing harm (as Skeletons is arguing - I think) If they were controlled by a human mind, the marks might look different than what the men were used to seeing from scavenging crows. And while I believe the text STRONGLY supports that the wounds were from weapons rather than animals. it just doesn't flat-out refute it, which is where Skeletons is finding room to wiggle. Those tiny margins of doubt are not persuasive or compelling, which is the point I was trying to make.

OK, I see your point. I guess my response would be, the argument for Othor being killed by birds is not persuasive on its own. You are right about that. But in the context of the COTF master plan, which I think is persuasive (I'll admit part 1 on its own is also not particularly persuasive), it makes a lot more sense if the COTF left the bodies and staged the assassination attempt on Mormont to escalate war between people and Others. I think it would be a weird plan from the Others to try to assassinate Mormont that way, and you totally lose the element of surprise. But that's what the characters assume happened. It is possible it was actually the Others, but I doubt it in the context of the COTF master plan. So yeah, I'm saying there is enough ambiguity in that chapter that my explanation could be true, but on its own it is admittedly a weak argument.

Edit: just to clarify, I'm not going out of my way to "weave" weak points into my theory. But my theory requires that we take a second look at certain events to see if it is at least possible that the COTF were acting as puppet masters, because if any of those events showed that COTF involvement was impossible, my theory falls apart. So I'm just trying to show its not impossible in those places, but that's not the basis for the theory.

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

OK, I see your point. I guess my response would be, the argument for Othor being killed by birds is not persuasive on its own. You are right about that. But in the context of the COTF master plan, which I think is persuasive (I'll admit part 1 on its own is also not particularly persuasive), it makes a lot more sense if the COTF left the bodies and staged the assassination attempt on Mormont to escalate war between people and Others. I think it would be a weird plan from the Others to try to assassinate Mormont that way, and you totally lose the element of surprise. But that's what the characters assume happened. It is possible it was actually the Others, but I doubt it in the context of the COTF master plan. So yeah, I'm saying there is enough ambiguity in that chapter that my explanation could be true, but on its own it is admittedly a weak argument.

Edit: just to clarify, I'm not going out of my way to "weave" weak points into my theory. But my theory requires that we take a second look at certain events to see if it is at least possible that the COTF were acting as puppet masters, because if any of those events showed that COTF involvement was impossible, my theory falls apart. So I'm just trying to show its not impossible in those places, but that's not the basis for the theory.

While I agree that it's actually doubtful that Others or wights killed them, because wights don't use weapons to kill (except for headless Jafer who happens to accidentally grab a dagger), and Other swords would leave other markings than an axe, there is ample circumstantial evidence for the assassination and the wighting to be Other related: for one, we have the blue eyes. Coldhands does not have the blue starry eyes in contrast. And secondly, while it's warm when they find the bodies, it becomes very cold when Jafer and Othor go walkabouting on a killing spree. Both blue eyes and sudden freezing cold are repetitively associated with Other controlled wight attacks.

Where I can see some involvement for the CotF and BR is exactly the lack of "eating". We see how wolves and ravens are used to destroy and eat the wights, when Sam and Gilly are rescued and in front of the cave. While the bodies are not found at the grove, they are near ot it, and there are plenty of weriwood trees in the forest and wildling villages (and very big) to see (and there are indications that the eyes of the tree are the canopy, the leaves). So, I think the more sound argument here is that they got killed (imo by Craster), they were wighted by the Others and lumbered to the Wall in order to assassinate someone they fear (I think they wanted to kill Jon, not Mormont, believing Jon to be LC already), and BR and CotF did not intervene (and thus had no wolf nor raven or crow touch them) in order to warn the NW what the hell is happening North of the Wall with the at that moment skinchanged wise raven giving the clue how to kill them.

[Wat The Second]

After reading half of George's short stories and novellas I am putting my money on the fact that the children are only pawns of a greater power, which as you pointed out are very likely the Greenseers. The more I think about "And Seven Times Never Kill Man", the more similarities I see with "A Song Of Ice And Fire". The CotF are a lot like the Jaenshi (Spoilers ahead from that story). They all cluster around these objects they worship that turn out to be some hidden entities that telepathically control them through the objects. The entities fight the enemies of the Jaenshi by telepathically spying on them and then sending dreams and visions. The enemies practically kill themselves off. The Jaenshi even have bronze eyes, like the children, that turn gold when they're under the influence of their "gods", and they have gifted individuals that are able to speak to the "gods" directly. These clearly remind me of the children's singers so it makes me wonder, are the Greenseers not the ones running the show, but someone even stronger? The thing they call the Great Other maybe? The zealots of the Red God are a lot like the Steel Angels and I have to expect that all their visions come from this greater power that controls the children and will lead them to self-destruction.

As for the assassination attempts, I don't see why we should believe something as complicated as the children being involved in the attempt made on Bran's life. Littlefinger skillfully wielding the dagger kind of points out that he really does own it so that makes me hesitant to believe it was just Joffrey's idiot plot. Maybe Littlefinger had sent the dumb-ass-assin to Winterfell from the start to make a failed attempt on one of the Stark kids right after Cat had got the letter from Lysa and the Lannisters came to town but the murder weapon being exactly the dagger he lost to Robert throws a wrench in most scenarios I can think of. In any case, the children hiring an assassin seems way far-fetched. They stay well away from humans, probably preferring that people believe them extinct.

The Othor attack also raises a lot of questions. First of all, I don't think that the children or the Greenseers or whatever greater power is behind them can raise the dead. They can skinchange the living, so far we know only Bran being able to go for humans, and half-wits at that, and Varamir failing. In the other writings of Martin making the dead move involves something different than the hive mind and telepathy power of the greenseers and that is called teke or telekinesis. I've only seen it once in a story called Nightflyers and it wasn't nearly as spectacular as the White Walkers do it but teke is a whole different ball-game. However the power of the walkers seems to be a "cast once and forget about it" kind of spell while teke requires permanent concentration. If I were to bet I would say the White Walkers have some mighty powerful teke-like ability that no one else does and they most likely have telepathy as well. I think corpses don't turn into wights until a White Walker works his magic (the show seems to indicate that too). I don't think we've seen any corpse come to life at the wall except those two who were clearly already turned when they were found, and were probably meant to be found. Jon even keeps a bunch of corpses in the ice cells hoping they would rise and be blatant proof to everyone but nothing happens. So this to me clearly looks like the doing of White Walkers.

Now about King's Robert death I completely agree. There is no way I can believe that the choice of words is coincidental by Martin. He absolutely loves to leave in these clues that don't mean much on the first read but if you come across them again after reading the whole story you will have an "OMG it was staring me in the face!" moment. Sent by the gods? There's only one god that I know of for certain in Westeros and his name is not Death, it's Brynden. Calling the boar a bastard twice and stabbing it in the eye? No, this is no mere happenstance my lords. But again, I put this solely in Bloodraven's lap and not the children.

Finally, I'd like to add that even though George said Planetos is not part of the Thousand Worlds universe, the more stories I read from there the less I believe him. I like to imagine that the whole of life on Planetos came to be after Haviland Tuf crashed his seed ship on it and all sorts of species of plants and animals went loose . But seriously everything that happened on Planetos so far is quite consistent with the Thousand Worlds Universe.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

11 hours ago, Wat The Second said:

After reading half of George's short stories and novellas I am putting my money on the fact that the children are only pawns of a greater power, which as you pointed out are very likely the Greenseers. The more I think about "And Seven Times Never Kill Man", the more similarities I see with "A Song Of Ice And Fire". The CotF are a lot like the Jaenshi (Spoilers ahead from that story). They all cluster around these objects they worship that turn out to be some hidden entities that telepathically control them through the objects. The entities fight the enemies of the Jaenshi by telepathically spying on them and then sending dreams and visions. The enemies practically kill themselves off. The Jaenshi even have bronze eyes, like the children, that turn gold when they're under the influence of their "gods", and they have gifted individuals that are able to speak to the "gods" directly. These clearly remind me of the children's singers so it makes me wonder, are the Greenseers not the ones running the show, but someone even stronger? The thing they call the Great Other maybe? The zealots of the Red God are a lot like the Steel Angels and I have to expect that all their visions come from this greater power that controls the children and will lead them to self-destruction.

As for the assassination attempts, I don't see why we should believe something as complicated as the children being involved in the attempt made on Bran's life. Littlefinger skillfully wielding the dagger kind of points out that he really does own it so that makes me hesitant to believe it was just Joffrey's idiot plot. Maybe Littlefinger had sent the dumb-ass-assin to Winterfell from the start to make a failed attempt on one of the Stark kids right after Cat had got the letter from Lysa and the Lannisters came to town but the murder weapon being exactly the dagger he lost to Robert throws a wrench in most scenarios I can think of. In any case, the children hiring an assassin seems way far-fetched. They stay well away from humans, probably preferring that people believe them extinct.

The Othor attack also raises a lot of questions. First of all, I don't think that the children or the Greenseers or whatever greater power is behind them can raise the dead. They can skinchange the living, so far we know only Bran being able to go for humans, and half-wits at that, and Varamir failing. In the other writings of Martin making the dead move involves something different than the hive mind and telepathy power of the greenseers and that is called teke or telekinesis. I've only seen it once in a story called Nightflyers and it wasn't nearly as spectacular as the White Walkers do it but teke is a whole different ball-game. However the power of the walkers seems to be a "cast once and forget about it" kind of spell while teke requires permanent concentration. If I were to bet I would say the White Walkers have some mighty powerful teke-like ability that no one else does and they most likely have telepathy as well. I think corpses don't turn into wights until a White Walker works his magic (the show seems to indicate that too). I don't think we've seen any corpse come to life at the wall except those two who were clearly already turned when they were found, and were probably meant to be found. Jon even keeps a bunch of corpses in the ice cells hoping they would rise and be blatant proof to everyone but nothing happens. So this to me clearly looks like the doing of White Walkers.

Now about King's Robert death I completely agree. There is no way I can believe that the choice of words is coincidental by Martin. He absolutely loves to leave in these clues that don't mean much on the first read but if you come across them again after reading the whole story you will have an "OMG it was staring me in the face!" moment. Sent by the gods? There's only one god that I know of for certain in Westeros and his name is not Death, it's Brynden. Calling the boar a bastard twice and stabbing it in the eye? No, this is no mere happenstance my lords. But again, I put this solely in Bloodraven's lap and not the children.

Finally, I'd like to add that even though George said Planetos is not part of the Thousand Worlds universe, the more stories I read from there the less I believe him. I like to imagine that the whole of life on Planetos came to be after Haviland Tuf crashed his seed ship on it and all sorts of species of plants and animals went loose . But seriously everything that happened on Planetos so far is quite consistent with the Thousand Worlds Universe.

Holy shit, your post made me so happy! Welcome to the forum! I assume you were a lurker and have deemed this thread worthy of your first post, I feel honored. You brought up a bunch of stuff I was thinking but hadn't brought up yet in part 1. Yes the similarities between the COTF and the Jaenshi, and the similarities between the Steel Angels and followers of the Red God are striking. That is one of the main reasons I have any confidence in my own theory. In part 2 I'm going to go over all the dreams that have been sent to people, which I think you will really like, and I will talk about how it appears that Jojen's green dreams and the Azor Ahai prophecy especially are meant to manipulate people into doing absolutely insane things. Touching on the possibility of there being an even stronger force out there than the greenseers, I think there are a couple possibilities. First, it is possible that the collective consciousness absorbing the greenseers is actually malevolent and absorbs the powers of the minds joining it but not the will of those minds. In other words, it could be tricking greenseers into thinking that joining is basically the equivalent of heaven, but it turns out to be Hell! There isn’t much evidence for this, but it would be a super GRRM thing to do, playing with the concept that people in the real world have faith in the afterlife even though dead people are silent on the matter. Second, it is possible that the Red Comet is not a comet at all and is actually some superior being or aliens running the show. The fact that multiple characters associate the comet with the birth of dragons makes me think the comet was somehow involved in dragons coming into existence originally. And then the comet appears again at the end of AGOT. This seems like a big coincidence, and I’m a believer that big coincidences like that don’t really happen in asoiaf, which would imply that either the COTF are purposely using the comet to help trick people into thinking prophecy is being fulfilled or, and I like this thought a lot more, it possible that the comet itself is manipulating events on Planetos, llike if it was actually the Volcryn from Nightflyers. My guess as to its motivations would be: if any given hive-minded consciousness in the Thousand Worlds universe has the ability to absorb the power of new minds into the hive and become more powerful as a result (we don’t know for sure but it might work this way), the Volcryn may be flying around trying to create powerful telepathic races on purpose to later absorb their power. Planetos could just be one giant genetic experiment of the Volcryn. However if it turns out the comet is nothing, and the collective of greenseers is running the show, I think they have basically been doing that on a smaller scale with people, using the Long Night basically as a big genetic experiment to create people with new powers and later use those people (or their descendants) as weapons via telepathic control or by absorbing them into the collective.

As for the assassination, I also think the COTF “hiring” anyone directly would be far-fetched. If they were responsible, I think they did it by sending the assassin dreams to manipulate him. The assassin may have also been mentally challenged based on the small amount of dialogue he has, but we can’t say for sure. And going along with that thought, I think the assassin, in that case, would have never known about the bag of silver, and the silver could have been left by another pawn of the COTF like say (this may sound crackpot to people) Mance, who was at the feast at Winterfell, told us he came over the Wall with a bag of silver, had the ability to sneak around effectively, and could have even set the fire in the library and/or been the one to steal the dagger in the first place and deliver it to the assassin. Not a lot of evidence for this, but it’s possible.

Do the Greenseers have teke? This is a big important question. I think they do, but I’m not sure about it. Bringing down the Hammer of the Waters and breaking the Arm of Dorne, if these events actually happened, I think imply powerful teke abilities. If I’m correct that the Long Night was caused by destroying the second moon with the comet, that is also teke, but is it the teke of the greenseers or of the “comet”? Hard to say. And if the Wall ends up being brought down by an earthquake, which is what the Horn of Joramund myth seems to predict, that would be teke as well, with the greenseers being the likely culprit. There are some hints that Sweetrobin may have teke, mainly that he thinks he can make people “fly” for some reason, even when no longer up at the Eyrie. Is this a new ability that other humans have not been born with before? Or does Sweetrobin descend from a line of people with teke powers? And perhaps most importantly, can the greenseers actually absorb new powers (I think probably) and if so, who have they absorbed over time? Can an Other join the greenseers? Did the COTF create the Others and then absorb their powers? It’s hard to say for sure.

A big question I have is: who is responsible for raising the dead? And what mechanic are they using? The fact that beheaded people/bears and dismembered limbs continue to move around even when not attached to a brain makes me think that it is a form of teke animating the dead. It may be that the wights are clumsy and slow because it is difficult to teke an entire army of dead bodies. One really important fact to keep in mind is we don’t know for sure who is raising the dead in any given scene. For instance, the Others could be responsible for 100% of the wights or the greenseers could be responsible for 100% of the wights, or it could be a mix. We assume the Others are responsible because we have legends about the Others raising armies of the dead (but it could have been the greenseers back then too), and the Others are nearby in the AGOT prologue and the attack on the fist. But this doesn’t necessarily mean the Others are controlling them. I’m betting the Others do have that ability and probably were responsible for the wights at the fist, but we can’t say for sure. The blue eyes point to the Others being in control, but that might be GRRM trying to throw us off. Or maybe the Others have blue eyes because they are also under the influence of the same power somehow. It may be simply that the Others can control wights, but they are super limited tactically by the weather, which seems to be controlled by the greenseers. The attack on the fist, for example, is super cold, but Jon is not far away and is quite warm at that time. Yeah, maybe “the cold comes with the WW”, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it is just the greenseers controlling the cold weather 100% of the time. And as for wights turning in the first place, we do have the example of Thistle. Now, maybe their were WW hiding in the background in that scene, but it appears that bodies may not need to be “touched” by the Others in order to turn, which I think lends more credence to the idea that it might be the greenseers doing it. But again, we simply lack enough info here to say with certainty what is happening.

King Robert’s death being solely in Bloodraven’s lap I agree. He is definitely blaming BR. The question is, is BR already part of the greenseer godhood? Or is he still his own consciousness with his own powers and motivations? I’m guessing he has already “joined” the godhood.

I also think Planetos is very likely part of the Thousand Worlds universe. I really like your pet theory about Tuf’s seed ship crashing and I could absolutely see that being true.

And for the other people in this thread who will read this and think I’m even more crackpot than they already thought, I realize this post involved a ton of speculation and stuff that sounds insane if you haven’t heard about or read other GRRM stories, but try to keep an open mind people. This is the kind of shit GRRM does.

[Wat The Second]

2 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

"Holy shit, your post made me so happy!"

Heh that part about Tuf is more like a funny personal wish than a theory but the world book talks about all sorts of animal species and human races and some of them sound a lot like what I've heard in the Thousand Worlds stories. It's true, George likes to go for shocker turns of events but he is very smooth. He deceives you fair and square, he doesn't just pull the rug from under you out of no where so keep that in mind. Like I said, when George makes a great reveal, not only will it make a lot of sense all of a sudden, but if you go back and re-read you will find clues to that reveal all over the place, some just hidden in plain sight.

Anyway, I have few theories of my own and only small ones but I like to keep a look out for the heavy hitting arguments by guys like LuciferMeansLifebringer or Schmendrick and many others and try to piece things together from the stuff I find most likely. Most of what I wrote is probably patched information from a dozen different people plus a few of my own observations and I don't claim it as a solid, worked-out theory.

[the trees have eyes]

On 27/10/2016 at 2:44 AM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I'm not trying to be rude, but to make the best analogy I can, you sound like a kid who still believes in Santa (spoiler!). Like you said, history has been made deliberately unreliable for some reason. The ridiculous childish story we (and Bran) are told is that the EVIL OTHERS (spooky) came to kill everybody with a bunch of zombies, and it was really dark and cold. Then the COTF saved the fucking day! They helped form the Night's Watch and together they defeated the EVIL OTHERS and we were saved oh my god! Bullshit. Just. Bullshit. Santa isn't real. There is no reason to trust this story. The fact that the POV characters in a GRRM story think it's true is kind of evidence that it is false, since it's important. The bad guys are literally called "The Others". What if GRRM wrote a story where everyone was white and then a bunch of black people attacked from the north and all the characters assume they are demons? But then on the other side of the world they invent nuclear weapons and you think "Phew, just in time to kill those black people." That is basically the plot of asoiaf. GRRM is tricking the reader into rooting for war and religious extremism when peace is the correct answer.

What the hell did I just read?  Westeros has it's myths just like our own world and some of those are turned into fables and ghost stories that adults tell to children.  Exactly how Old Nan tells Bran stories to frighten him.  Quite obviously those stories have a kernel of truth but your  weak parody is appalling.  Leave race out of it for god's sake, it's fantasy with competing species and, yes, ice demons.........

On 27/10/2016 at 3:13 AM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I'm not assuming any of those things, though. I'm just providing explanations and saying my theory is plausible when people say "Isn't your theory impossible because X?" And I'm saying no, it's not impossible because for example, such and such could be true. Or there might be some other reasonable explanation, but we lack info on that particular subject. The assassin could have had an accomplice or not. I'm not assuming one way or the other. I think it would have been easier to pull off if he did, and I think someone else left the bag of silver, because it seems off that the assassin didn't keep the silver on his person, so I'm betting there was someone else involved based on the evidence we have. I admitted I don't have a definitive answer for why the children failed against the initial invasion because we lack info, but there are plausible explanations that are compatible with my theory and I provided an example. I think I am looking at things very reasonably and critically, in my opinion. And I'm sorry if time-traveling puppet masters feels out of place to you, but that's not really much of an argument. Personally I think a story with puppet masters is way more interesting than a story about a bunch of contrived coincidences written to advance a plot.

There is no reason to believe the assassin had an accomplice because it is neither made necesary by events in the text nor hinted at in any way in the text.  Could he have?  Yes, he could have.  He could have had 100 accomplices but there is nothing in the text which entertains the idea of it.  You were assuming it though and this is why you are getting so much push back as your "method" throughout is to assume things that are not in any way suggested in the text in order to flesh out "evidence" for your theory.  What you are doing is saying what you might have done if you were the author.

We do have a definitive answer to why the children failed against the initial invasion: they were always few in number, smaller than humans and fought with weapons of weirwood and dragonglass that made them no match for larger, more numerous men armed with iron.  The problem is that your theory has to assume that everything we have been told is a lie and that the alternative version of events you create changes from minute to minute as you weave in responses to particular points from posters.  This is dangerously close to fanfiction and an alternative version of the story.

And at heart you seem to admit that a grand conspiracy and misdirection that M Night Shyamalan would be proud of is simply more appealing to you than the narrative GRRM has spent 20 years writing.  Which is kind of sad to me that people can't enjoy and accept the story for what it is.  The CotF as grand puppet masters controlling the destiny of the world in a way that Dan Brown might have the Illumninati attempt belongs in a different story as do the omnipotent time travellers and time fixers of your imagination (Twelve Monkeys, The Adjustment Bureau).

And all literature depends on "contrived coincidences" to move the plot forward.  However else can an author create dramatic and surprising encounters or move events forward?  What were the chances Bilbo Baggins would fall down a crevice in a goblin's mountain lair and find a magic ring?

On 27/10/2016 at 3:26 AM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Personally, I think the Long Night itself was not really magical, and was simply the result of the dust from the destroyed moon blocking out sunlight for a generation.

If the Long Night was not magical and simply the result of an astronomical event why are the seasons still unpredictable six or however many thousands of years later?  Magic is unpredictable but we sure know it's real.

On 27/10/2016 at 0:11 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Very simple explanation. It's not to say gotcha to the reader, the lore that exists is to manipulate characters like Bran into thinking the COTF are the heroes.

Actually no one in Planetos believes the CotF even exist.  Not even the NW though Sam found records of trading with them buried in the library.  They don't think they are heroes as they don't believe in them any more than we do in leprechauns.

On 27/10/2016 at 0:14 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Ok, but again, this is only part 1. I have more evidence that the COTF were involved in other events that I haven't posted yet. So I think it is supported, but I didn't put that much regarding their actual manipulation of events in part 1. But saying it feels out of place is a subjective opinion, because I for one disagree.

This is going to present the same problem with "evidence" as the evidence for the CotF being behind the "deliberately failed" assassination attempt on Bran, the provenance of the dagger and the mysterious accomplice: that none of it is supported by the text but because it isn't specifically refuted you seem to think that it amounts to something.  The CotF are on the verge of extinction, they failed to protect their lands and sacred places from humanity and yet you see them as time-travelling and changing superbeings who are manipulating every major characer in story in line with their master plan and have also created a false version of history to lull humanity into false sense of security.  And you don't think this is out of place?  O.K....

On 27/10/2016 at 0:46 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I did however present evidence of trees requiring greenseers. We have BR for one. And then, most importantly a cave of living greenseers, which is proof that the COTF lied about BR being the "last" greenseer. So what else did they lie about, is my line of thinking. Then we have a ton of suspicious quotes that would fit very nicely if all the trees have greenseers, such as the 3 intertwined trees named "The Three Singers", which is not proof, but is a piece of evidence. And I have 2 main points to prove time travel, but I only mentioned the first in part 1. Bran clearly gets his father's attention literally his first 2 seconds in the weirnet, that's time travel. And if BR can send dreams, there is no reason to think he can't travel back in time through the net and send dreams. And the potential examples of the COTF time traveling are basically all the visions people receive from the old gods, like Jojen's green dreams, which I think we're clearly sent to manipulate Jojen into doing insane things, and I will elaborate more in part 2. Not all Jojen's dreams contained info from the future, but the one about the sea coming to Winterfell is very specific about who will die and probably had to be from the future.

It's not though.  I agree that the greenseers who are rooted in the weirwoods go into the trees in some sense and become a symbiotic kind of organism that is what the Old Gods appear to really be.  But the individual greenseers do not retain their consciousness and sense of themselves as living things, they seem to become part of a collective consciousness all jumbled together.  Bloodraven is the only one who is still able to talk and act rationally as an individual (the others being tapped into and fueling the weirnet as dreamers, i.e.they are dreamers not doers and actors) so in that sense he is the last greenseer still able to be an actor.  Which make perfect sense as we know the children were never many in number, their numbers have dwindled to a few hundred and greenseers are very rare so despite them being long lived there are no CotF greenseers left able to act, only a human recruited in desperation, Bloodraven, who, due to his much shorter natural lifespan is also nearing the point of absorption into the weirnet and teaching Bran while he still can.

This seems a very shaky foundaton to construct the idea that Bloodraven and by extension the CotF are lying about everything else.  I mean Bloodraven is a man after all, not a child of the forest, so why would be adopt their master plan?

Prophecy does not require time travel but it does require the ability to see the future.  I think you are confusing the two concepts here to say that green dreams are evidence of time travel and the ability to reach back and alter past events.  I think a green dream shows what will happen but cryptically so as it is from the pov of a tree or a wild animal not that a sentient being has travelled or sent their conscousness back in time in order to alter past events.  Short version: green dreams are intended like prophecy to warn of things to come not to allow time travel and alteration of the past.  Otherwise Bran or any greenseer becomes God and that is not a satisfying or reasonable way to interpert this story's take on the limited nature of magic.

On 27/10/2016 at 0:53 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Also, I'm using GRRM's other stories a bit as evidence. If GRRM didn't already have several stories about time travel where people can send their consciousness back through time, and stories where malevolent hive-minded organisms send dreams to manipulate men into going to war, I definitely would not subscribe to my own theory. But he did write those stories, so I think this theory is super legit.

Please don't!  Authors write many stories in different universes with different realities and possibiities but each needs to be kept contained and separate.  GRRM may have written about ice dragons, Beauty and the Beast or time travellers but that doesn't mean they are here in ASOIAF just waiting to be revealed.  Follow the story that he is writing now, don't expect elements of other stories to appear.  And why would he write the same story twice?  He has a vivid imagination and a completely different story to surprise us with.

On 27/10/2016 at 2:16 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

But the cave of greenseers is strong evidence that the COTF lied about BR being "the last greenseer".

Yeah I know about that quote. I think BR lied. He clearly lied. Bran tried to talk to his dad, and his dad responded. Granted, that first try didn't work too well, but I think it is strong evidence that at least Bran can change the past.

Even if the universes of GRRM's stories are separate, that doesn't mean he doesn't re-use concepts, like skinchanging for example, which appears in other stories and is a big part of asoiaf.

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't have concrete proof for my entire theory, but I think time travel has basically been proven to exist. Not 100% proven, but in my opinion, 99% proven. You can disagree with me on that if you want.

The dreamers in the cave were greenseers.  Are they still?  They cannot speak or act in any way we can measure.  BR's comment looks just fine to me.

We don't know if Ned heard anything other than a rustling of leaves.  When Osha finds Bran under the Winterfell heart tree in ACOK she asks him if he hears the Old Gods.  He hears the wind rustling the leaves on the tree.  Maybe Bran can through the weirwood tap into events in the past that have particular significance either to him or in general - after all what is the point of keeping memories alive if you can't access them - but can he affect them?  Does BR lie or has Bran yet to learn that he can see but only futilely attempt to change something that cannot be changed?  My money is on the latter.  Because, quite obviously, the CotF would have changed many other things to their advantage if they could.

Again you have a fairly slender reed to base your theory on that time travel is even possible.  How in all seriousness can you say that time travel has been 99% proven to exist?   Mind.  Blown.

On 27/10/2016 at 2:32 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

"But theories without proof are fan-fiction." Show me a single theory for future books that has "proof" please. And don't say R+L=J, because that has not been proven by a long shot and I personally don't subscribe to it.

Please don't throw Wikipedia articles at me to say time travel doesn't exist in a GRRM story. He has written other stories with time travel in them, so that's a silly argument to make.

You don't subscribe to R+L=J  but you do to time-travelling master manipulating CotF orchestrating every sinlge chance encounter or dramatic event in the series?  Come on, man.  You are deliberately rejecting everything in the text and a theory that does have a lot of evidence behind it (unlike yours) just for the sake of standing out from the crowd with a new idea.  Maybe mainstream seems too dull or ordinary but it actually stacks up.

GRRM writing a different story about time travel does not mean this story he has spent 20 years writing without time travel really does have it hidden in there somewhere.  That's a silly argument to make.

On 27/10/2016 at 3:00 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I don't think my theory is full-proof. If I didn't want to read arguments against it, I wouldn't have posted it.

"he is not one to repeat himself" Wrong. He is one to repeat himself. Time travel, for example, is already in more than one story, so that's repeating himself.

I am not going to argue about R+L=J in this thread, but if you think it is "proven", then I think your standard for proof is super low.

It's not fool-proof, it's completely unproven and unsupported by the text.  Just because he has writtten about time travel before does not mean he is writing about time travel this time.  Particularly as after 20 years he hasn't done so.

Actually R+L=J isnt proven but it is strongly supported by the text and widely accepted by the readership.  The very idea that you would reject this theory due to lack of proof yet peddle your own theory with no textual support behind it and claim that in your opinion time travel is 99% proven to exist is both frankly incredible and supremely ironic.

21 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I think your line of logic here is valid, but it's kind of a weak argument. You could be right, but I think my theory is more likely. The conversation does not make it clear like you said. It is ambiguous.

The rangers discuss Jaffer's wounds to make it clear he was killed with an axe.  They don't remark on what caused Othor's wounds specifically but they do say no animal has touched the corpses and remark that his corpse has three mortal wounds.  In the context of this you cannot seriously argue that Othor was torn to pieces or pecked apart by a flock of ravens.  Now, you can argue it, as you show us repeatedly, but you can't argue it with any hope of convincing anyone.  If Othor had been pecked to death by a flock of birds it would be a truly remarkable way for a man to die and worthy of note by everyone seeing the corpse.  How common is it for a ranger to be killed by a flock of birds and why would no one notice or comment on it if he had been?  It is simply not reasonable to belive this is how Othor died and it is only more "likely" if you are in thrall to an ideological view of things that requires you to argue illogically about a corpse in order to promote a conspiracy theopry that it was the CotF what done it.  Or stubbornly adhering to a pet theory against all evidence to the contrary.

18 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

OK, I see your point. I guess my response would be, the argument for Othor being killed by birds is not persuasive on its own. You are right about that. But in the context of the COTF master plan, which I think is persuasive (I'll admit part 1 on its own is also not particularly persuasive), it makes a lot more sense if the COTF left the bodies and staged the assassination attempt on Mormont to escalate war between people and Others. I think it would be a weird plan from the Others to try to assassinate Mormont that way, and you totally lose the element of surprise. But that's what the characters assume happened. It is possible it was actually the Others, but I doubt it in the context of the COTF master plan. So yeah, I'm saying there is enough ambiguity in that chapter that my explanation could be true, but on its own it is admittedly a weak argument.

Edit: just to clarify, I'm not going out of my way to "weave" weak points into my theory. But my theory requires that we take a second look at certain events to see if it is at least possible that the COTF were acting as puppet masters, because if any of those events showed that COTF involvement was impossible, my theory falls apart. So I'm just trying to show its not impossible in those places, but that's not the basis for the theory.

Do you really not see the problem here?

The argument for Othor being killed by birds is indeed not persuasive as you say. Becuase there is nothing in the text to indicate that is what happened and, as none of the NW remarked that the body had been pecked or torn, there is every reason to belive that it didn't happen.

Only in the context of the "CotF masterplan", which you created, not the author, does the possibility of Othor being killed by ravens becomes a circumstance that might be possible (though still unsupported by the rangers' examination of the corpse).  Indeed it becomes a requirement because it becomes a piece of "evidence" in suppoirt of your theory even though this is not how Othor died.

And you do see the problem: you summarise it very clearly and fairly accurately in the bolded part in  your last paragraph.  The only thing you get wrong in the last para is the idea that we need to prove the children could not possibly be involved to discredit the theory: actually you need to prove or persuade us that it is probable that the children were involved to give the theory any credibility.  Sorry but I don't see any of that so far.

[Clegane'sPup]

35 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

What the hell did I just read?  Westeros has it's myths just like our own world and some of those are turned into fables and ghost stories that adults tell to children.  Exactly how Old Nan tells Bran stories to frighten him.  Quite obviously those stories have a kernel of truth but your  weak parody is appalling.  Leave race out of it for god's sake, it's fantasy with competing species and, yes, ice demons.........

There is no reason to believe the assassin had an accomplice because it is neither made necesary by events in the text nor hinted at in any way in the text.  Could he have?  Yes, he could have.  He could have had 100 accomplices but there is nothing in the text which entertains the idea of it.  You were assuming it though and this is why you are getting so much push back as your "method" throughout is to assume things that are not in any way suggested in the text in order to flesh out "evidence" for your theory.  What you are doing is saying what you might have done if you were the author.

We do have a definitive answer to why the children failed against the initial invasion: they were always few in number, smaller than humans and fought with weapons of weirwood and dragonglass that made them no match for larger, more numerous men armed with iron.  The problem is that your theory has to assume that everything we have been told is a lie and that the alternative version of events you create changes from minute to minute as you weave in responses to particular points from posters.  This is dangerously close to fanfiction and an alternative version of the story.

And at heart you seem to admit that a grand conspiracy and misdirection that M Night Shyamalan would be proud of is simply more appealing to you than the narrative GRRM has spent 20 years writing.  Which is kind of sad to me that people can't enjoy and accept the story for what it is.  The CotF as grand puppet masters controlling the destiny of the world in a way that Dan Brown might have the Illumninati attempt belongs in a different story as do the omnipotent time travellers and time fixers of your imagination (Twelve Monkeys, The Adjustment Bureau).

And all literature depends on "contrived coincidences" to move the plot forward.  However else can an author create dramatic and surprising encounters or move events forward?  What were the chances Bilbo Baggins would fall down a crevice in a goblin's mountain lair and find a magic ring?

If the Long Night was not magical and simply the result of an astronomical event why are the seasons still unpredictable six or however many thousands of years later?  Magic is unpredictable but we sure know it's real.

Actually no one in Planetos believes the CotF even exist.  Not even the NW though Sam found records of trading with them buried in the library.  They don't think they are heroes as they don't believe in them any more than we do in leprechauns.

This is going to present the same problem with "evidence" as the evidence for the CotF being behind the "deliberately failed" assassination attempt on Bran, the provenance of the dagger and the mysterious accomplice: that none of it is supported by the text but because it isn't specifically refuted you seem to think that it amounts to something.  The CotF are on the verge of extinction, they failed to protect their lands and sacred places from humanity and yet you see them as time-travelling and changing superbeings who are manipulating every major characer in story in line with their master plan and have also created a false version of history to lull humanity into false sense of security.  And you don't think this is out of place?  O.K....

It's not though.  I agree that the greenseers who are rooted in the weirwoods go into the trees in some sense and become a symbiotic kind of organism that is what the Old Gods appear to really be.  But the individual greenseers do not retain their consciousness and sense of themselves as living things, they seem to become part of a collective consciousness all jumbled together.  Bloodraven is the only one who is still able to talk and act rationally as an individual (the others being tapped into and fueling the weirnet as dreamers, i.e.they are dreamers not doers and actors) so in that sense he is the last greenseer still able to be an actor.  Which make perfect sense as we know the children were never many in number, their numbers have dwindled to a few hundred and greenseers are very rare so despite them being long lived there are no CotF greenseers left able to act, only a human recruited in desperation, Bloodraven, who, due to his much shorter natural lifespan is also nearing the point of absorption into the weirnet and teaching Bran while he still can.

This seems a very shaky foundaton to construct the idea that Bloodraven and by extension the CotF are lying about everything else.  I mean Bloodraven is a man after all, not a child of the forest, so why would be adopt their master plan?

Prophecy does not require time travel but it does require the ability to see the future.  I think you are confusing the two concepts here to say that green dreams are evidence of time travel and the ability to reach back and alter past events.  I think a green dream shows what will happen but cryptically so as it is from the pov of a tree or a wild animal not that a sentient being has travelled or sent their conscousness back in time in order to alter past events.  Short version: green dreams are intended like prophecy to warn of things to come not to allow time travel and alteration of the past.  Otherwise Bran or any greenseer becomes God and that is not a satisfying or reasonable way to interpert this story's take on the limited nature of magic.

Please don't!  Authors write many stories in different universes with different realities and possibiities but each needs to be kept contained and separate.  GRRM may have written about ice dragons, Beauty and the Beast or time travellers but that doesn't mean they are here in ASOIAF just waiting to be revealed.  Follow the story that he is writing now, don't expect elements of other stories to appear.  And why would he write the same story twice?  He has a vivid imagination and a completely different story to surprise us with.

The dreamers in the cave were greenseers.  Are they still?  They cannot speak or act in any way we can measure.  BR's comment looks just fine to me.

We don't know if Ned heard anything other than a rustling of leaves.  When Osha finds Bran under the Winterfell heart tree in ACOK she asks him if he hears the Old Gods.  He hears the wind rustling the leaves on the tree.  Maybe Bran can through the weirwood tap into events in the past that have particular significance either to him or in general - after all what is the point of keeping memories alive if you can't access them - but can he affect them?  Does BR lie or has Bran yet to learn that he can see but only futilely attempt to change something that cannot be changed?  My money is on the latter.  Because, quite obviously, the CotF would have changed many other things to their advantage if they could.

Again you have a fairly slender reed to base your theory on that time travel is even possible.  How in all seriousness can you say that time travel has been 99% proven to exist?   Mind.  Blown.

You don't subscribe to R+L=J  but you do to time-travelling master manipulating CotF orchestrating every sinlge chance encounter or dramatic event in the series?  Come on, man.  You are deliberately rejecting everything in the text and a theory that does have a lot of evidence behind it (unlike yours) just for the sake of standing out from the crowd with a new idea.  Maybe mainstream seems too dull or ordinary but it actually stacks up.

GRRM writing a different story about time travel does not mean this story he has spent 20 years writing without time travel really does have it hidden in there somewhere.  That's a silly argument to make.

It's not fool-proof, it's completely unproven and unsupported by the text.  Just because he has writtten about time travel before does not mean he is writing about time travel this time.  Particularly as after 20 years he hasn't done so.

Actually R+L=J isnt proven but it is strongly supported by the text and widely accepted by the readership.  The very idea that you would reject this theory due to lack of proof yet peddle your own theory with no textual support behind it and claim that in your opinion time travel is 99% proven to exist is both frankly incredible and supremely ironic.

The rangers discuss Jaffer's wounds to make it clear he was killed with an axe.  They don't remark on what caused Othor's wounds specifically but they do say no animal has touched the corpses and remark that his corpse has three mortal wounds.  In the context of this you cannot seriously argue that Othor was torn to pieces or pecked apart by a flock of ravens.  Now, you can argue it, as you show us repeatedly, but you can't argue it with any hope of convincing anyone.  If Othor had been pecked to death by a flock of birds it would be a truly remarkable way for a man to die and worthy of note by everyone seeing the corpse.  How common is it for a ranger to be killed by a flock of birds and why would no one notice or comment on it if he had been?  It is simply not reasonable to belive this is how Othor died and it is only more "likely" if you are in thrall to an ideological view of things that requires you to argue illogically about a corpse in order to promote a conspiracy theopry that it was the CotF what done it.  Or stubbornly adhering to a pet theory against all evidence to the contrary.

Do you really not see the problem here?

The argument for Othor being killed by birds is indeed not persuasive as you say. Becuase there is nothing in the text to indicate that is what happened and, as none of the NW remarked that the body had been pecked or torn, there is every reason to belive that it didn't happen.

Only in the context of the "CotF masterplan", which you created, not the author, does the possibility of Othor being killed by ravens becomes a circumstance that might be possible (though still unsupported by the rangers' examination of the corpse).  Indeed it becomes a requirement because it becomes a piece of "evidence" in suppoirt of your theory even though this is not how Othor died.

And you do see the problem: you summarise it very clearly and fairly accurately in the bolded part in  your last paragraph.  The only thing you get wrong in the last para is the idea that we need to prove the children could not possibly be involved to discredit the theory: actually you need to prove or persuade us that it is probable that the children were involved to give the theory any credibility.  Sorry but I don't see any of that so far.

I want to say thank you. You have expressed my sentiments almost exactly.